Report from the ACM DRM Workshop

Anonymous Coward writes "There's open skepticism from researchers about the ability of DRM to solve Hollywood's copy protection problems. Read Edward Felten's review here... Papers from the workshop are available online as well."

Watermarking

I just wish they would give it up, its only a matter of time when they come out with some type of copy protection, that someone will come up with a way of defeating it. Meanwhile we (the consumer) suffer because we get things like cd's we can't play in our computer.

Re:Watermarking

It is going to be bad when all music comes with a EULA thrown into the little booklet and the music companies decide that since you listen to the music in an unacceptable manor (ex: saved on your computer, on an unsupported portable device, etc.) that you are void from being able to listen to what you have bought... and the music is expired.

Re:Watermarking

This is a good reason to support Congressman Boucher and the Digital Choice and Freedom Act of 2002. They are trying to actually get fair rights usage on the law books, not just as court case precidents (esp. since the DMCA stripped a lot of our rights away and this takes some back). It is not slated to appear this congressional session. However, it never hurts to start calling your Reps and asking them to sponsor the bill.

Info on the bill [house.gov]

/end paranoid sounding political rant

Re:Digital Video Outputs....

Two problems:

1. This stops working when all new components have DRM built into them.

But let's say you save your old equipment and can access the data, then:

2. Just because *you* may be able to come up with a solution, it doesn't mean that the problem goes away. The fact is, if this allows content providers to hinder the ability of law abiding citizens to exercise their fair use rights, then that's a Bad Thing.

Think of DRM circumvention as if it were spam blocking. Which would be better, a) you block your incoming spam, or b) there is no more spam. From your perspective, option a is fine, but spammers don't care. As long as option b doesn't happen, they are happy.

Content providers don't care if a few techies manage to watch their DVDs on Linux boxes or listen to protected music on unapproved devices. If most people are subjected to the imposed constraints, then they're happy. Just because you can avoid the problem doesn't mean the problem isn't there.

We shouldn't focus solely on avoiding the problems, we should be working on making the problems go away (e.g., supporting legislation that returns our fair use rights).

Will they ever learn?

DRM is threatening now. We don't know what sort of gimmick they're going to come out with to defeat piracy. Once it's out, it'll stop piracy for a short term. At least untill someone whips out a, "sharpie pen exploit."

The pirates and anyone interested in defeating DRM have one advantage over the RIAA/MPAA - We do it for free. They have development costs. We don't. We contrive functionality not merely due to a desire to pirate, but because it is fun.

I'm a geek. I get bored.

Yup, pretty much..

There's open skepticism from researchers about the ability of DRM to solve Hollywood's copy protection problems

In May I attended a meeting on amending Canada's copyright laws to include DRM protection.. one of the guys there owns a company that does encryption research.. his statement basically said "the application of encryption technology to prevent copying is fundamentally flawed"

Indeed, someone who makes his living doing what the entertainment industry wants, and he says it can't be done.

I'm glad that researchers are finally speaking up about this.

Re:Yup, pretty much..

Its also readily apparent that both Microsoft and Big Media have bet the farm on DRM.

I disagree - two of the papers at the conference were presented by Microsoft Research people. They are quite interesting, one shows how to defeat any currently deployed watermarking scheme, and the other discusses the bigger picture of DRM and watermarking vs. peer to peer networks and other forms of file sharing.

Both papers are very sceptical of DRM.

Microsoft may be playing the DRM game for now, but I'm sure it's just a temporary thing... if they convince Hollywood and the record studios that Windows Media Player is the "only secure" format, they will potentially gain a short term advantage over the competition. And in this industry, a short term advantage can be leveraged into a long term industry lead... Profit !

Yeah, in the long run all the schemes will be broken and Microsoft knows it, but they're happy to play the game for now.

What do you mean DRM isn't effective?

It worked for this post...

Bar, Qrpelcg QEZ cebgrpgrq zrqvn
Gjb, Dhrfgvba Znex, Dhrfgvba Znex, Dhrfgvba Znex
Guerr, Cebsvg Rkpynzngvba Znex, Rkpynzngvba Znex, Rkpynzngvba Znex

Re:What do you mean DRM isn't effective?

Wait! Wait, I've got it, it says...

One, Decrypt DRM protected media Two, Question Mark, Question Mark, Question Mark Three, ...

Just a second I have to answer the door...

...

...Hillary Rosen! What brings you to this corner of the neighborhood, and why are those cops standing the--*BLEAGH*

*Sounds of a soft heavy object being drug away, thrown in a trunk, and a car speeding off follow.*

Re:What do you mean DRM isn't effective?

Didn't you really mean to say:

Ash nazg durbatuluk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatuluk, agh butzum-ishi krimpatul!

I think...

they should watermark paper. That way noone could copy it!

Oh wait...

DRM=No more memory dumps?

If DRM could be implemented without restricting access to memory in my own computer I probably wouldn't mind it so much. The problem is that DRM cannot be implemented without this restriction. Any encrypted file will have to be decrypted, and that means that I can dump memory and get the unencrypted value. DRM will never work without taking away certain things about a computer that make it the extremely useful tool that it is.

Re:DRM=No more memory dumps?

Any encrypted file will have to be decrypted, and that means that I can dump memory and get the unencrypted value.

That's only the first step. You can hear and see. It's only a matter of time until you try to tell your friends about what you've seen and heard. I'm afraid that we need to restrict the output from your mouth (tongue removal), restrict the output of your hands (finger removal) and that last bastion of binary communication, your eyelids. (Eeeewww, gross). This will be required to protect our IP from you, you nasty pirate. Now, we want all of this done at birth, so no one will ever have the opportunity to pirate our IP. End of problem.

So how many didn't show up?

I'd be interested in knowing how many people _didn't_ appear or present papers at this workshop due to the DMCA.

If you build it, they will come!

Just another mountain to climb, they just keep building them higher and higher.

When is Hollywood going to realize that it is a waste of time and money to protect their works with copy protection?

Here is an idea ... Hollywood should put all this money towrds a directing or acting school so that they can produce movies that people won't mind paying for! People will always pirate, but more people are likely to willingly pay for "good stuff"

My $0.02

Re:If you build it, they will come!

Nonsense. If Hollywood really can't protect it's works the film industry will die. It's an economic question. A reasonably large budgeted feature film costs $100 M to make and involves at a very rough estimate around 100 person years of labour. If the money cannot be recouped reasonably it's all over. No more Matrix, no more Fight Club, no Harry Potter, no Lord of the Rings.

It should be noted that the game industry has managed it. Consoles exist to some degree because console games can be made sufficiently difficult to copy that most people can't be bothered. And with some games costing upwards of $10 M to develop this couldn't happen sooner.

The current music industry is another story. They are dead. In 1970 the only way a record could be made and distributed was with a recording studio that cost thousands, perhaps millions, and expensive duplication equipment along with an expensive distribution chain. These days you can by a digital 8 track recorder and a PC for less than a grand and do it all yourself and then distribute it over the net. Mp3s and file sharing will change the economics of music and kill the RIAA but they will never kill it, with films it's different, digital technology offers the possibility of wrecking Hollywood.

Think about it for a sec, before putting up your slashdotisms.

Re:If you build it, they will come!

Nonsense. If Hollywood really can't protect it's works the film industry will die. It's an economic question. A reasonably large budgeted feature film costs $100 M to make and involves at a very rough estimate around 100 person years of labour. If the money cannot be recouped reasonably it's all over. No more "Good Burger", "Dude, Where's My Car", "The Cable Guy"... The world would not come to a hault if the $100,000,000.00 (it seems bigger when you type it out) movie became an impossble business decision. Yeah, a lot of actors, cameramen, and production assistants would lose their jobs, but hey, they can all go back to waiting tables, doing a job that society still considers productive enough to merit pay. We don't need to protect industries that have served their purpose in the past, but are now no longer worth what they used to be.

hmmm

You seem to be assuming that, a priori, the only movies made require Hollywood-level expense and infrastructure... Not so, with the advent of digital video and prosumer level video editing decks. (Is a $1000 video editing card cheap? A $3000 dv cam? $2000 a/v raid? hell no. but they're a damn sight cheaper than the big-studio level stuff.) I think the coming digital age will herald the end of the Hollywood blockbuster and the dawn of a new era of smaller independent filmmaking. Because now not only the tool but the distribution media are in place to make a good movie for less than 50 grand. If you can sell digital downloads of your film for $5 and get 10,000(*) people to look at it, you've broken even. Coupled with a strengthening of film festivals and online movie-consumer websites (think the Amazon book recommendation system applied to indie films), this could turn filmmaking from a hundreds-of-people-and-millions-of-dollars effort to a tens-of-people-and-thousands-of-dollars effort with a real chance of being a profitable enterprise... I think that this would allow a purer artistic vision to shine through in most of the resulting films because with lower financial risk and fewer participants there would be less of a "design by commitee" aspect.

(*)That seems like a lot of folks, but given the scale factor of the internet... (How many of us have laughed at one point or another at the "All Your Base" or "Gonads and Strife" clips?)

The Folly of copy protection

As long as we can get the encoded version (on the disc) and decoded version (out the speaker or monitor) of media (music, movies) then copy protection is doomed.

Not doomed, exactly...

While true that companies seek a way to wrap their media in such a way as to make it impossible to copy (the ideal), right now they'll settle for forcing some level of degradation into the copies to add a practical factor preventing the limitless illegal distribution from one source of their content.

I had the opportunity to engage a luminary in the field in friendly discussion at a September DRM luncheon in Prague. He made it clear that despite the feelings of a vocal minority (us), copy protection will be accepted if not welcomed by the general population. Consumers in both Europe and Japan currently purchase such content with minimal complaint, and it seems even more likely in field testing that America will actually desire the copy protection if they are told it will lead to better sound and picture quality.

Granted, he was working within the industry, but the devastating piracy figures in a recent poll conducted among computer users made it clear that DRM will save the industry a lot of money. The poll, performed by blind surveying at three recent trade shows across the U.S., showed a staggering amount of pirated content; broken down by operating system of preference (to see what kind of effect DeCSS has had) apparently Windows users 'only' pirate about a quarter of their movie content, against Linux users' 67% and Macintosh 30%.

In the wake of this information, and the lackluster performance of the music industry in recent years, it is little wonder that they're adopting a 'Chicken Little' approach -- for them, the sky truly is falling. Hopefully, a reasonable compromise between our rights to do with our hardware as we will and the rights of copyright holders to be renumerated for their efforts will be struck; however, I am assured that if one will give, it will be the continuance of Open Source media decoders.

Re:Not doomed, exactly...

Consumers in both Europe and Japan currently purchase such content with minimal complaint

What are you talking about? What copy protected content do European consumers purchase? DVDs maybe but I heard they were available in the US too.

America will actually desire the copy protection if they are told it will lead to better sound and picture quality

So everyone will believe what they are told? Clearly there is no technical relation between better sound and picture quality and DRM.

Granted, he was working within the industry

And you believed what you were told.

Re:The Folly of copy protection

As long as we can get the encoded version (on the disc) and decoded version (out the speaker or monitor) of media (music, movies) then copy protection is doomed.

You misunderstand. RIAA doesn't need to make copying impossible--they just need to raise sufficient barriers so that an equal-copy version is harder to get than walking to the store and buying one.

They don't even have to worry about price right now--they just need to make the most convenient method of getting a copy of re-listenable (as opposed to broadcast) music to get it from them.

(Yeah, and online delivery would be the best way to get it--but that sorta requires DRM at the moment...)

'Bout time...

While I agree with one person's comment, that this level of response won't make any difference *policy wise*, it strikes me as an important step that engineers *in the industry* have started saying quite blunty, "this won't work".

Having a million random geeks say "we can break anything you throw at us" carries little weight - the non-techies coming up with these crackpot schemes just assure themselves that *their* idea will make fools of the collected geeks of the world.

OTOH, having the very geeks PAID to design and implement these ideas say "uh, well, no, it really won't work all that well" means quite a lot more. Obviously, mr. clueless exec's first response would consist of firing any naysayers. After the 10th or 20th person to say "no, really, this won't work, it doesn't matter if you threaten to fire me", they *might* start to get the idea that they have at least a somewhat difficult goal.

This might mark a turning point. Not necessarily for the better, since I expect the next set of ideas to involve a lot of annoying-as-hell hardware-level DRM, but since even that will unavoidably fail, we have taken a step toward the road back to sanity.

I hope. The RIAA and MPAA could always try to get the death penalty for music pirates. ;-)

"Whad'ja do, man?"
"Downloaded an MP3 of Brandenberg Concerto #3"
"Uh, I thought that would have gone PD by now"
"Nah, when Disney discovered a 14th century precedent for Mickey, they had copyrights retroactively extended back for a full millenium."
"Bummer"
"Yeah. But at least I only *downloaded* a copy, I just get flogged plus the standard 20 year sentence. A buddy of mine made Mozart's 19th string quartet available on a file sharing network. Poor bastard, they dragged his wife and kids out into the street and shot them all, then at the actual hearing sentenced him to death by impalement in front of RIAA HQ."

Silly

- Copy protection has never worked, geeks find it a challenge.

- Copyright laws don't work against the small players.

- Cutting hands off thieves never worked, they stole with the other hand.

- Hanging for pickpocketting never worked, other pickpockets worked the crowds at public hangings.

EDUCATION is the best tool against theft, not more laws and ineffective technological hurdles.

DRM solves IT job slump

Think of all of the big bit $$$ from your job as a DRM architect.

Shhhhhh....don't spoil the IT industry economic recovery.

the REAL reason why DRM will fail

has nothing to do with the machinery, technologies, protocols, etc. It has everything to do with people. Even if the DRM technologies were perfected right now, people would still find a way around it. Why? Because they want to. IMHO we all need to remember that a system isn't just the hardware, software, and logical bits. The system also includes the people; people who create the hardware and software; people who manage and use it; people who create content, etc. People who give it all a purpose. I've never seen any hardware or software that has a purpose by itself; people give it that purpose, and it is reflected in the design. If someone's purpose is to crack DRM schemes, they will probably do so.

False assumption in the watermark removing paper

The author says per default watermark enabled player devices will play unwatermarked content.

Is he dreaming ? Or may be he smokes some illegal stuff !

C'mon already

Who is really still buying CD's?

Re:C'mon already

Me, for example. I find mp3s from musicians I've never heard of (sometimes I have, doesn't matter), I like them, I go find & buy their CDs. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Damn free music is costing me a fortune!

( Funny thing I've noticed tho ... I rarely listen to the radio any more ... )

The problem with DRM: unimaginative Hollywood.

I think the real problem with DRM as Hollywood types are trying to implement it is that they're so unimaginative they can't envision a scenario in which online offerings are accessed with anything besides a general-purpose computer. Basically, it's the same old Hollywood problem all over again: they can't picture anything new themselves, so they keep rehashing existing things ad nauseum.

Instead of trying to wreck or cripple personal computers, why aren't they trying to build a new special-purpose media device with the decryption method in hardware and the case sealed? Doing this would let them implement DRM in any way they chose without interfering with anyone's work, it would give them a new product to sell, and it would probably leave everyone happy. Not just happy; probably delighted.

Some other benefits of such a product would be that they could control what connectors are installed, they could play with the way the screen is painted so it wouldn't appear well on videotape (remember how old CRTs wouldn't show up well on videotape because of how the scan lines were generated?) and they could build in a temporary storage function which would let you time-shift or do any other thing you wanted.

Think about it: this would give them everything they want. They could put A/V content on the web in a proprietary encrypted format, so they wouldn't have to worry about all us Linux guys downloading their precious files, people would have access to the content as part of their cable service, they'd get either a cheapo low-end model free or buy the premium system (the cell phone model)... And, everyone is happy. I can browse the non-DRM web with my Red Hat box, or turn on my content system when I want to do something requiring DRM. It's totally win-win.

Sometimes I think the MPAA and RIAA are asleep at the switch. None of these legal maneuverings are necessary! Build the little custom media system, stop producing videotapes, switch over to encrypted online streams and DVDs, and freakin' relax. Drop the idea that everything has to run on a PC, for Christ's sake.

Of course, this is just my opinion and they're not going to listen. But, wouldn't it be nice if they did?

Re:The problem with DRM: unimaginative Hollywood.

Instead of trying to wreck or cripple personal computers, why aren't they trying to build a new special-purpose media device with the decryption method in hardware and the case sealed? Doing this would let them implement DRM in any way they chose without interfering with anyone's work, it would give them a new product to sell, and it would probably leave everyone happy. Not just happy; probably delighted

You mean like DIVX? We all know how well that worked

Just in case anyone else has problems with this

The article about CD-Audio watermarking (which is a very good read) is in GhostScript format.

Just in case you don't have the ability to read it, you can get the viewer program by following the instructions here [wisc.edu] and here [wisc.edu].

This might be redundant, but I didn't have it on my Windows machine, and the article was really worth the trouble to find it. Figured I'd save others the headache...unless I'm the only one here who didn't have it.

How typical

How typical of Microsoft.

Notice that everyone else uses .pdf (somewhat more Linux friendly) and the
two representatives of MS posted .doc (save the paper from the Law paper)
as if they were accentuating the fact that they were from Microsoft and too
good for .pdf

Durrrrr.

No really? Its not going to work?

I flawlessly copy protected a CD just a second ago. I took what was on it, and multiplied it by a 2056 bit prime number. Lets see those pinko p2p people rip that! And if they do, I'll change the number to 4128 bits! One song per CD! 50 CD Sets!

Hahahahahaha!

We'll make special CD players that only play things with that random number on them! If you want to buy a new CD, you'll have to buy a new CD player as well! I'll be rich!

And no more of this "radio" thing! These "wideband" pirates cost us 10000000000 dollars a minute. Little green men in Alpha Centauri are listening to our music for FREE! And making as many copies as they want! This has got to stop!

And CD retailers with their flimsy "anti-theft" devices are doing hardly anything to keep unscrupulous "meat-space" thieves from literally WALKING away with our merchandise. From now on, all our intellectual properties will be kept in giant steel vaults with mandatory cavity searches on the way in AND out.

Blah blah blah.

At this point, I hate the RIA and Hollywood so much that I'll work 50 hour weeks for no money just to break their crappy protection. Die you greedy bastards! 100 million dollar opening weekends not enough for you?

Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice Doggy" until you find a rock.

The intention of DRM

I am developing a DRM solution for a major record label. I am a loving slashdot poster and feel the same as all of you. But the client wanted it and I had to oblige or not get the contratc.

I had to implement Windows DRM on Windows Audio files. The Windows DRM server is a mess. With no support, incomplete and documentation that flat out LIES. They LIE repeatedly through the documentation, or they simply make statements in one instance that directly conflict with others. FYI, the windows development community is outstanding. There are tons of free apps and sample code. This is the first time I've ever had to rely soley on MS for support as there is no community for DRM. It was a horrible experience.

With all of that aside, I did get it built. The record companies know how well DRM works, especially on .wma files. I had the same opinions of the recording industry as many of you. Like "they are dumb, they should be doing..." What you (and I) don't realize, is that they have access to much more information than we do. They DO know everything. They DO have their reasons for their implementation.s They have thought it out.

They don't care if DRM only partially works. That is all it needs to do. With the low costs of distribution, they can model the risk/reward, profit/loss easily. Volume is the key in the recording industry.

Many people WILL buy the albums/songs regardless if the technology can be circumvented. ANY technology on any platform has their open flaws, this is just another. As we all do, they play the %'s.

My $.02, it may not mean much, but I have seen it all in a new light.

Is PKI the answer?

Actually, I think it is possible to create a DRM-Happy world. Just put PKI on everything and encrypt everything with it. Use decently sized keys, etc. If you manage figure out how to get the private key out of a device, the bad guys just need to refuse to re-certify that device and give it a new private key (all of these devices will need some kind of network connection. Could be a big boon to pervasive wifi...)

Of course, all of the information will be able to be 'downgraded' to old formats by redigitizing the analog signal. But with legislation like SSSCA/CDPTPA (or whatever) anything that can do that is illegal. illegal doesn't mean inaccessible, but it's probably good enough for the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft.

It won't be perfict, but you can't have perfectly secure communication either (what with keyboard sniffers and the like). That doesn't mean you can't get very, very close.

People with cameras

Given that the last couple of big movies, the pirate copy was made with a cam-corder.

Given that having people distribute home made movies is legal, and in fact, something that should be encouraged.

Making said movie in a movie theater while a film is showing, THAT isn't legal, but I don't see a technological solution to where people point their cameras

DRM will not work, but it will be reality...

Whether we like it or not, money will be donated to campaigns, congress will vote and laws will be passed. Furthermore, monopolies will be monopolies and you will have a choice of Microsoft DRM OS running on Intel/AMD DRM hardware or you get Linux.

I think that Hollywood knows that they are never going to stop pirating. I think they are looking for a way to stop 99% of pirating. We all know that no matter what they come out with, someone will be able to pirate it.

The only way to win this battle is for the consumers to stand up and send Hollywood looking for a new business model. They do not with how they spend their money. Period. It's the only way.

The solution: produce ultra high bandwidth content

Digital copy protection schemes are usesless because it only take a good capture of the presentation of the material to defeat. Examples:
analog recording of stereo audio output from a
CD player; video camera in the movie theater. So long as the capture device can reproduce good enough quality of the presentation, it's a moot
point trying to protect the source.

The solution is not to lock up the source, but to
produce new content with quality that far outpaces the ability of capture devices to reproduce/re-transmit it.

Come on! Bring out the HDTV, HD-DVD, SACD, and holographic video and change people's definition
of "good-enough". It's still gonna be years before
the bandwidth is there to mass re-distribute contents of such high quality. If people are accustomed to watching color TV, would they revert to swapping tapes of black and white? The music/movie industries need to invest in their next big thing, and give consumer a reason to spend their money on something of extra value. Their old chicken that lays golden eggs is dead.

Eventually, there will come a point where technology would outpace human's ability to perceive any increase in quality. (Who needs
128bit color depth, when 32bit is more than quite
sufficient?). But it'll be a long time before the average joe gets a holodeck it his livingroom.

The most important thing...

that I got out of the papers so far, is that if I want to rip copy protected audio CDs, I'll get a plextor drive and use CD Paranoia (see this paper [stanford.edu] for more information).

Microsoft's take on this

From the Microsoft Paper [stanford.edu]:

I see three specific areas of work that are key adoption blockers today and ripe for further academic and commercial research. The lack of widely-available trustworthy computing devices, robust trust management engines and a general-purpose rights expression/authorization language all hamper industrial development and deployment of DRM systems for digital content.

Translation:

1: For DRM to work, everyone in the content must be running a secure OS (presumably Windows) on specially designed hardware AND

2: A system in place on the client (presumably the .NET CLR trust management engine) must authenticate every executable on the client before execution AND

3: All content providers must use a language (presumably MS's XRML - eXtensible Rights Management Language) to 'encode' documents and executables for number 2, above.

Basically, MS is saying: if you want DRM, OSS and 'general purpose' computing devices must go away. And of course, you must serve your media using Windows.NET Media Server.

Re:Microsoft's take on this

So what you're saying is:

1. Hollywood wants DRM and wants the US.gov to add some laws to make it mandatory.
2. MS is saying that for DRM to work, everyone needs to have the latest version of Windows.
3. DoJ (a subsidary of US.gov) has proved in a court of law that MS is a monopoly and that is a no-no.

Conclusion: The US.gov has said that MS is not allowed to be a monopoly, yet is being paid by Hollywood to make sure that it becomes even more of a monopoly.

I can see the .gov agents buying their bus tickets and carrying their buckets of water...

Skepticism at conferences is certainly not new

The 5th Information Hiding Workshop took place just a short while ago, and similar attitudes were aired---not just in coffee breaks between sessions, either.

One very prominent researcher asked the entire audience to consider whether or not they really believe that DRM marking will ever be a possibility, and to consider the consequences of publishing Yet Another Copyright Marking Scheme. A similar frank comment appears in the preface to the 3rd IHW proceedings, 3 years earlier, which had a lot of watermarking papers.

What is new is a sense of the conference being part of the overall policy machine. When people publish YACMS, vulnerable to the same collection of attacks, they contribute to this mass of research which Jack Valenti et al perceive as proof that maybe it is possible after all, despite the insistence from the tech sector that it is not.

Xcottt

DRM that supports fair-use

The paper [stanford.edu] "Implementing Copyright Limitations in Rights Expression
Languages
" is the one I found most interesting. Mulligan and Burstein talk about how to implement the copyright act using a "Rights Expressions Language". They use XrML as a starting point, and go on to describe a whole bunch of issues.

I've often said the most complicated part of making a "fair" DRM (as opposed to one that just simply allows the copyright holder to do whatever they want) is to accomidate fair-use. After all, if the definition of fair-use requires lots of supplemental information and is hard to define even for a judge, what chance does a computer system have of making the right decision? This paper takes the bull by the horns, and starts trying to figure it out.

I wish we could get all of congressman to read the first two sections of this document! It does very through job of explaining how many existing checks-and-balances the DMCA removed, all in favor of the copyright holders! I know of few other examples where so much law has been invalidated with so little thought.

"Darknet" paper

I had a look at the "Darknet" paper [stanford.edu] written by Peter Biddle, Paul England, Marcus Peinado, and Bryan Willman all of Microsoft Corporation.

It's really strange. Some aspects of it seem to pander very crudely to the MSFT bias towards single-user computers - the authors miss out on usenet as a "darknet" completely and they date "Internet" darknet activities to 1998. I can recall FTP'ing scanned playboy centerfolds from wustl.edu as early as 1989 - it was almost a year to the day after the Morris internet worm struck. At the same time the conclusions are very anti-MSFT-corporate-worldview: the authors conclude that some form of "darknet" will always exist for various reasons. This collides directly with MSFT's TCPA and Palladium and general piracy-crackdown viewpoint.

I can only conclude that some faction inside MSFT doesn't like or believe in the MSFT-corporate direction to include copy protection (a.k.a. DRM) in the OS and this paper is a sort of sermon in the void to warn the CEO/COO/C?? against putting all the MSFT eggs in one basket.

Or perhaps the authors are trying to run the plot of their latest cyber-thriller up the flagpole to see who salutes it.

DRM is Step Two

Let see here....

1. Produce multi-million dollar movies and distribute them
2. ???
3. No profit due to Step 2 [slashdot.org]

Revise:
1. Produce multi-million dollar movies and distribute them DRM
2. ???
3. NO PROFIT! Who-hoo!

Sounds like the same-ol'-same-ol' to me....

I remember...

... having a conversation with a pretty sharp friend of mine at school about all this crap about four years ago. It seemed to me as though all of these efforts to create copy-protection (the old name for DRM) were totally useless because you /can't/ protect the data. There's always a way around it. This is not encryption people. This is like saying "I want to give you something and not give you something at the same time." How the hell do you do that? You don't, that's how.

Consider watermarking. If I know there's a watermark in the data, I can fiddle it until I understand the watermark and remove it. Like other people have said, any decryption key has to be in memory /somewhere/ ... so the best thing any programmers can do is just try to hide it through obfuscation. Since there is no REAL way to actually protect the data, instead we're going to be deluged with hare-brained schemes that just make it harder and harder for us to do what we want with our data.

So, DRM == copy protection. Anyone else remember where copy-protection went with games and everything for the first 15 years of commercial software? More and more annoying, until finally the companies gave up. Same thing will happen with DRM unless the antagonists can learn from history.

As far as legislation, and "secure" platforms go ... sure that might work, hypothetically. But I hope and pray that the public won't take it.

simon

One way to stop DRM is....

for the board manufactures not to put the DRM chip in, there is no law saying they have to and who cares if users can't run windows, hey no drm chip microsoft goes bankrupt and end of drm, and Palladium, end result linux becomes widely used os, another alternative is to write a letter a day for the U.S. goverment to halt DRM developent as well as retract the DMCA once an for all, I do as much as possible.

My take from the DRM workshop...

.. is that software-only solutions are doomed. It seems that, e.g., research on removing watermarks is far more advanced than on creating them. I especially liked the work by Darko Kirovsky and Fabian Petitcolas. They basically replaced short passages of music with other passages from the same pice by correlating them. Introduces a little noise but kills wathermarks.

They claim the same works with video and I have every reason to believe this.

I hope that hardware-DRM is also doomed because customers do not have a readon to buy it. After all it does not offer them any advantage at all.

I like this paper...

I like this [stanford.edu] paper, which is a rundown on watermarking, DRM, and the "darknet" (basically, illegal content traffic).

My favorite part is this bit at the end:

"Additionally, the cost-per-bit, and the total size of the objects have a huge bearing on the competitiveness of today's darknets compared with legal trade. For example, today's peer-to-peer technologies provide excellent service quality for audio files, but users must be very determined or price-sensitive to download movies from a darknet, when the legal competition is a rental for a few dollars."

If you read between the lines, what they're basically saying is that MP3s are being pirated because CDs cost too much. Perhaps this is common sense, but it's nice to hear people from companies like Microsoft saying it.

Re:Yep

We've includes most consumers but none of the "industry" who gets overpaid to waste time coming up with ways to degrade out products.

That is NOT the text

The text from the article says:

Proposals for systems involving mandatory watermark detection in rendering devices try to impact the effectiveness of [file sharing systems].... In addition to severe commercial and social problems, these schemes suffer from several technical deficiencies, which, in the presence of an effective [file sharing system], lead to their complete collapse. We conclude that such schemes are doomed to failure.

Note, the article actually says that the watermarking is doomed to failure... not p2p. I've got no idea where on earth you got that text, but its not correct.

Re: useless drivel

no one wins, but the rich get richer.
I think one could just use that reply for every article ever posted on Slashdot.

Re:watch out

1) Politicians only care about rich people because you need a lot of money to get elected.

2) The mass transit analogy doesn't hold because mass transit costs a fortune to build and operate, while copy protection can be broken by someone who's still living in his parents basement.

3) The disease isn't capitalism, the disease is campaign finance. It can be cured.

Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggy" until you find a rock.

Bread on the table

Very true. As it happens, there are plenty of engineers who are quite willing to work on things that Don't Really Matter (DRM) as long as someone is willing to pay Really Indecent Amounts of Acmids (RIAA) for it. It puts bread on the table. Telling them what they don't want to hear doesn't.

Re:Yep

(Score:1, Redundant)

I'm sorry. Usually I just let moderation slide by like the stench from a dumpster. But sometimes the smell is just so offensive, I have to take issue. The whole freaking STORY is REDUNDANT. Moderation is a privilege (Ask me, I lost it in the great bitchslapping for moderating one of the editors), not something you forward your opinions with. The article is saying something WE ALL ALREADY KNOW, namely, that DRM won't work. To moderate someone redundant for pointing this out is ASININE. (Look that one up, broaden your vocabulary. Do it online though so you don't get drool on the big book)

Ahh, I feel better now. I hope you have some mod points left so you can mod this post accordingly.

I object!

I don't feel that an academic body like the ACM should have anything to do with research that undermines our fair use rights !

They're one slippery slope away from throwing intellectual freedom out the window.

WAY TO GO, ACM!